The petitioner is the owner of a Tata truck bearing Regn.No.KL7/C-6195. The vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance dated 26.11.2004 issued by the second respondent. The policy is Exhibit P1. The petitioner also had a goods carriage permit Exhibit P2 that was valid for the period from 28.09.2000 to 27.09.2005. On 15.01.2005, when the lorry was parked near a quarry, by the side of a hill where quarrying operations were in progress, a huge rock fell on the lorry and the vehicle was totally damaged. Since the petitioner's vehicle was covered under a comprehensive insurance policy valid up to 25.11.2005, the petitioner claimed the value of the vehicle from the second respondent. However, the claim of the petitioner was repudiated.

2. The petitioner challenged the repudiation of his claim before the first respondent. The complaint was taken on file, the matter was heard after the parties entered appearance and thereafter Exhibit P3 order was passed. As per Exhibit P3 order, it has been found by the first respondent that, the repudiation of the petitioner's claim was justified for the reason that, the petitioner's vehicle did not have a Fitness Certificate at the time of accident. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P3.

3. According to Sri Vishnu Bhuvanendran who appears for the petitioner, the Award of the first respondent is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. According to the counsel, the vehicle was covered by a valid Insurance Policy issued by the second respondent. The vehicle was totally damaged in the accident for which, the petitioner is entitled to be compensated. According to the learned counsel, absence of a Fitness Certificate has not been made a condition either in Rule 146 of 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner's vehicle was not covered by a valid Fitness Certificate cannot be a ground for repudiation of his claim for compensation. It is further contended that, it was the duty of the Insurance Company to have checked and verified whether the vehicle was covered by a valid Fitness Certificate before issuing the Insurance Policy. If the Fitness Certificate was valid only up to a particular date, the policy should have been issued only up to the date of expiry of the Fitness Certificate. The Insurance Company not having adopted the said course, it cannot be heard to contend that they would not admit the claim of the petitioner for the reason that his vehicle did not have a valid Fitness Certificate. The counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Exhibit P3 and directing grant of compensation to the petitioner.

4. Advocate Saji Varghese appears for the second respondent. According to the counsel, the Award of the first respondent does not call for any interference by this Court. It is pointed out that, a vehicle that does not have a valid Fitness Certificate cannot be said to be a vehicle validly registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly, a vehicle that does not have a Fitness Certificate cannot be said to have a valid permit under the Act. My attention is drawn to the condition in Exhibit P1 policy entitling the second respondent to repudiate a claim in such circumstances.

5. Heard. The limited question that arises for consideration is whether the lack of a valid Fitness Certificate for the vehicle of the petitioner would disentitle him from claiming the value thereof under Exhibit P1 Insurance Policy. There is no dispute regarding any of the other facts.

6. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) mandates that, no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit a vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the said Chapter. Therefore, a vehicle to be used in a public place or any other place 'has to be validly registe